Quote:
Originally Posted by kameelyun
I just saw Obama on CNN talking about the existence of the protesters at the summit, and how "this is the great thing about America. We have the right to protest."
Right.
These days, if you want to protest at a major event, you have to go through impossible bureaucracy to get a permit. To stand in a secluded area. They have regulations on the size of sign you may carry. No bullhorns allowed, because that disturbs the "peace." Oh, but the riot police may have their own super-bullhorns to disperse everyone. That's fine.  |
what's wrong with all that? if there's enough drive behind a protest, it will get to where it will reach people regardless of sign size, loudness, or location. does it really have to disturb the peace to be heard? yeah maybe you could argue that the media wouldn't cover it or something; i disagree. but even so, it would be widely reported on the internet. stuff doesn't have to be so sensational to be powerful or effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kameelyun
There are definitely varying degrees of police state. Most police states simply go after street protesters at major events, where their message can be seen and heard loud and clear. In most of these police states like China, if you simply live your life quietly and apolitically, you're just fine to return home from work and head out to the cabin on the lake and spend the weekend fishing with your family. Nazi Germany was an exception in that they went after you simply for your DNA; if you looked like a Jew, walking the street was dangerous.
|
you're still talking about china. . . why don't you talk about here? people protest stuff all the time. they don't completely disband this shit and ship everyone off into prison camps. plus you just explained to me exactly how protests can be carried out most effectively. sounds like a free society to me! so let's talk about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kameelyun
Does that matter at all? Would you condone the authorities' actions if you found out the protesters were advocating a message you disagree with?
|
no i'm just curious. like i knew what the teabaggers were standing for, what about these guys? and on that note, what did those teabaggers do differently in order to avoid being gassed? or was the message of the g20 summit simply more objectionable to the establishment; is it that what which attracted such abusive reaction? i guess i won't know 'til i see their message being given within the guidelines of acceptable protest. then i'll see whether they still get arrested or gassed or whatever.